>> again laughter new-line and the dean of johns hopkins university of international studies said it is rare privilege will love everyone ambassador

sergey kislyak minnesota before it to hearing his perspective and with his deep engagement of diplomacy and to discuss the global issues ambassador sergey kislyak pave easily served as minister for affairs 2003 through 2008 and prior to that serve simultaneously at the russian federation

ambassador to belgium and graduated from moscow and the academy of foreign trade? and the senior fellow policy and the moderator of the global security forum who will conduct the of conversation to moderate the event. so let's please invite the ambassadors to the podium. [applause]

>> takes for joining us students and faculty with this very important subject subject, russia and want to fake the rather large audience that is here today on this important subject please turn off yourself funds perhaps even need to say to you or specially to you. [laughter] or maybe it is moscow calling. >> but i could give them a vice. [laughter]

>> do you want to make a few remarks at the outset with is complicated relationship with? i remember going to the welcoming ceremony when gorbachev came in that was seen the transformation that was different and lasting and since then each one comes in and expecting to be better and in some ways they are but that perspective is crucial point that we can

get into those other issues. >> first and foremost, thanks for inviting me to this wonderful opportunity to explain russia is and is not that is important especially nowadays. i was thinking how to start the discussion because i know americans tradition to start with a joke. [laughter] of a trying to find the joke about america russia relations and allow suisse sense of humor. [laughter] the quality of the relations is very unfortunate i a will have a chance to draw upon that as it develops not in the best fashion with the american relations because we can do a lot of things

together and also like to say we are watching very carefully the elections in this country. and no high will not comment laugh laugh because we do not interfere by my statements or electronic or other means and that is important. we are now living through . and i remember also. nest of high expectations of

a weekend do with the nuclear weapons. for what we can do together? and there is no cold war even today. there is no ideological divide between us and in the way of five for 10 years ago . to move in the wrong direction. and to characterize where we are today and will try to summarize. only the normal channels between the states are present to have a commission

with those working groups on a number of issues p. to help with those relations with the science and technology. and if you name meant to we have it. that was the decision of the united states. we see them and i am trying to be polite, and we have had waves of the thames and the calls for isolating russia there are recent

calls for this of isolated pressure. and ferry much disappointed instead of trying to capitalize desalt those issues that do exist for that type of friendly discussion. and we are missing a lot of opportunities. it isn't us who started that and with those current

disagreements on syria. with the russian russians those that would even solicit with those events happening. and afterwards when the edward snowden was stuck in the russian airport and we had no legal reasons that all to give him to the government of the united states. for the very simple reason we do not have that agreement for mutual extradition because they refuse to have won with less.

and as they chose to cancel the russian president. and those things that lead to the situation in the ukraine with the forceful overthrow supported by the united states and we did not. we had dash huge disagreement to build a national unity that was in position. hopes so we have pressure for what we could not

accept. to have significant disagreements on crimea. with the of willingness of the people to choose. and as an instrument of pressure. and as if i am properly asked. it is important to understand how things are developing now having said that i would not comment on the u.s. elections plan will make one small exception that we are very disappointed about the rhetoric about pressurized that is embedded in these discussions the

russian-american missions seem to be the collateral damage in the united states that does not bode well for the relations a lever we are keeping all the doors open to work with the united states on issues and i would submit there are many more in the past we could restore a little bit of normalcy and elevate to think it is more stable and irreversible. i want to pick up on a couple of things that you

mentioned. you said russia has tried very hard to work with the united states on a number of issues but if that is the case looking at how hard john kerry has worked the with uh humanitarian disaster is there a chance for that russian engagement of and at resolution of hostilities

>> >> and now with those exact numbers with those russian speakers to fight in this particular area. those people will return to russian-speaking countries and we will have protective borders with our neighbors is a real concern. second we must understand that the government of syria needs to be able to continue . with and not only for pdf syria but the rest of us will be increasingly more

difficult. because that kind of country is a totally failed state. expanding from the region as well we have seen net. to have that kind of people who are spending their lives and how they act. so for us was very important with the invitation of the government of syria to help

to fight terrorist. nothing more or nothing less. on the fully legal basis. in about asking the permission. and we simply understand and how those disagreements that there is no stable solution that can be achieved. but what is important is to have a political solution to bring the syrians to gather. everybody speaks in a way that it is serious but if

they feel bad if there dutifully elected and they want these alternative the cuts the heads off in the name of religion. and we need to understand first level is to eliminate the source of terrorist and in the principal we even agreed with united nations of the security council tonight to have a safe haven and second to help uh

country to start the negotiating process because now to tell the syrian people who will be the leader and as they try to harmonize with the united states to some degree we thought we were almost there when we came to an agreement of that very reason decision to establish the regime of the rugged coast to turkey

we have agreed that the syrian government and also to establish uh checkpoints that the issue unitarian assistance to be sure by the opposition so what we saw after words and it was an attempt. it is very telling as to what we are. but what happened? the opposition attacked 350 times.

was and it was the 12th and 14th of september to allow these humanitarian convoy is but they tried to take over the territory. but it would not allow those supplies but it is happening even today as we speak and then just remember there are several parts that is under control from the government forces being sold each and every day. one-third of the people that are killed our kids. that is controlled by the

opposition forces and the outside that. and then they think of the al qaeda forces is. but it causes them to leave a bad area al qaeda that axis territory is how we call an iron fist. so we need to understand

it's not something that is portrayed with the civilians of the government forces but where we go are the forces of dog haida. sometimes we ask our american friends there is the opposition that you keep telling us? we never had any specific response on this issue and to deal with that any more precise fashion.

thises uh distortions sometimes that we see. and i always thought which always that would understand what to do so. so after the days of violations of the treatment -- a region anticipated enough is enough's. as of of pressure of the opposition to major that dave will be felt tight and be separated and this

problem now that unless you focus what did this that it cannot be constructive. but when it comes to a grievance -- agreements is a different story. >> but i want to add that that it is a result of the unfriendly actions of the united states. >> i know. first, i have to explain. russia and the united states has produced for weapons purposes.

and some 12 years ago we start to negotiate and agree because of what we produce to for the purposes and would be a eliminated between the scientist and diplomats and discuss how to eliminate that. because it is reversible. and then learn about that and nuclear reactors. there up to my eyes with

that kind of functions. so to tell them that we will build a reactor that will be very well designed with that process of elimination. we have to build a facility and so then that the government was insisting we did not want them to do that at that time because it was enormously expensive and at that time we were promised a lot of financial help and it never came. what happened? the u.s. government and the

of middle of the process you have decided to move in another direction because it is reversible and we have completed one that is why we have just learned. . .

it is crucially changed into the circumstances did change. we have seen a hostile russia and ballistic missile defense being deployed and it changes in the long term in the long run dos stability for the future.

we see this developing in the united states to act militarily. so we happened to reconsider being an informant of an agreement and having said so i would like to underline having the conduct and treaty we understand we are not planning to use this. >> i have to go back.

we can talk about a 50 the 50% % even without but how do you see this ending but you know about the conditions that prevailed how do you see it in the context of a non- collaborative u.s. russia effort? where does it go? >> they announced the agreement from step nine is still there.

we are willing to work. first of all. secondly, i think that during the multilateral we have this avenue to pursue so what is important is that the portions on the ground. it's by supporting and rearming the forces acting on the government so as far as we are

concerned is to stop the fighting but it includes. the position is to be trained and sometimes armed by the united states and the al qaeda. it's a trend that needs to be dealt with militarily. it points specifically to syria.

it's to start the negotiating. initially on the first steps towards the process of seeking a formula for the peaceful negotiations we invited them to moscow. the goal was to help them talk to each other. they've neethey would need for d grandkids and we solved it by the moment the words i would say the understanding that they are

impossible to. we see the opposition in the preconditions that has been blocked but i think we need to continue the negotiating process and if we can achieve that, it's not going to be easy. it's going to be painful. >> we are there as long as the situation requires.

russia for debris exceeds the conventional forces in europe and in the near future or is this expected to last and what does it take, what actions are envisioned.

it has created the panoply of limits, supplements. it is to be expected. what was happening as germany was reuniting for the spending but in reality the.

of the countries are suggesting they are members and so it would be built into the limitations so we are only increasing. we can ask our west european friends to negotiate what was called the amendment of the

treaty, so the initial agreement plus amendments. what happened is after we signed the amendments, we had nothing to do with the substance of the issue they refused to. the united states and others continue to implement that old treaty that was supposed to regulate.

[inaudible] it's created such conditions because that's one other problem i wanted to discuss of these things that brought me to the issue. what was happening at the end of the cold war was the landscape and the number of countries with

russia, former members and we all wanted to decide how to build a security environment that ou are all-inclusive in bringing everybody together. would you believe that it was impossible to. that would be favoring all the countries of the continent including russia. and what happened is that they didn't allow it to start serious negotiations on the issue. we did propose several versions

of it. i didn't claim that it was true but it was several ideas that we seek to develop to create the security of everybody but it never happened. during this 25 years, what he saw happening was 18, 21 and has been moving in the infrastructure forces closer to the border and it can hardly be a security system that favors security of everybody. what happened during that 25

years succeeded in taking out by itself the security space spacen a bigger part of europe. but it's an alliance for the others and that creates a [inaudible] that will have a very long consequence. >> i have a general question and then specific. based on all the things you've seen and participated in the du

think america, russia allies, what are some of the overlaps of the commonalities and where do you see the major divides a for the life of whatever the next four years but say? >> let's start with our longer history. we are close laborers. sometimes people forget that russia is the closest neighbor. it's only 4 kilometers.

we have a history where we were helping. what amazes me most is the canons and rifles and the curators tell me that during the russian presence, not a single cannon or rifle was used for hostile fashions. they were used only to salute guests. for me, it's very symbolic.

we have many and on some issues we've been able to work in the times of the cold war. if it were not for us, which probably wouldn't have the treaties for eternity. if it were not for us there wouldn't be a member of arrangements that reduce the materials in the world. there is an area where russians and americans risk their lives together and rely on each other.

they do things together in either a particular environmenta very particular environment and in a program where astronauts are flying on russian rocket boosters. i've spoken to them many times and it's mind boggling because they get have a different psychology. they worked together, and they believe in what they do togeth together. they proved to be new to the ups and downs in the american relations. so, whether we can work together, my answer is yes. whether we can expand the areas we can work together, my answer is yes. one of the areas might be very useful.

we have been able to work together in moments trying to remember the issues of chemical weapons while the government was considering getting involved. we proposed a solution that was different and it worked. they would decide that it serves and trusinterests of the countro work together. and we have been able to remove the nuclear chemical weapons at the time of war in a serious situation. i know what it took to remove chemical weapons. and we viewed it together. interesting and symbolic moments

for their russian and chinese also. it's amazing what can be done when we feel that we can work together. unfortunately we bump into problems that will be systemic in that way but because of the current state of affairs. >> i was going to raise up china but i wanted in my part in the dialogue one of the student experts to say how do you see

differing depending on which candidate, hillary clinton or donald trump with the presidential election. >> i'm going to open up to the audience. i was a request for students to have the first before we turn to others. kindly keep the questions brief and identify yourself. wait for the microphone, please.

[inaudible] what is the russian federation currently doing to ensure the rights during the national situation? >> i don't see anything temporary about the situation. one has to be serious. it is a decision by people to leave the country that kind of was stolen and they try to remember as well as i do it was for the use of russian language and the context was very strong.

[inaudible] they didn't feel comfortable to live in the country in the government that has taken away from them the ability to preserve the identity to leave the normal part so there was a decision made by them that we embraced immediately. when it comes to minorities, i think as connected with ukraine

they might compare it with the conditions which the minorities can exercise the national identity in crimea with that which existed in the ukrainian time including the equal of any of the languages to be used those are protected their. it's the most important as anybody in the russian federation. >> my name is chris barnes and i just started studying this for

the first time that i can't sayy anything yet with confidence. >> earlier this year the former chairman of the senate armed services committee gave a lecture in which he determined e risk of a nuclear confrontation with potential for catastrophic proportions is now at its highest level since the end of the cold war. from your perspective or that of the russian government do you agree with the assessment and if so, what concrete steps do you believe can and must be taken by the u.s. and russian government either individually or cooperatively? >> i come up with great respect to send non- who is a colossal

thinker on these issues i do not share that view in a nuclear war today because even with the current differences, i think we have enough reasonable people on both sides and having said so i also would undermine the quality of the relations currently between us in general is the lowest point at the end of the cold war. the risks of the miscalculations have increased especially with the forces being deployed how

should i put it in a polite way to show up the strength say 100 meters from the checkpoint of the border. it is something that is less serious. but that kind of feeling to project the power and force can be employed against russia and it creates a lot of determination to be prepared for anything and as a result we will

be enforcing the presence in the western part. we see the mantra closer to the military basis. the air with tomahawks and anti-ballistic systems and what else. we don't know what can follow. remember there were a number of complaints and we even were

requested to propose the negotiations and so far we have not been able to engage. the number has increased dramatically. the number of intelligence has quadrupled even more dot i-india expect numbers but it's dramatically increased. so we all see it with concern

and we are strong enough to protect ourselves but it leads to additional efforts and that is raising the chances of a difficult situation. >> my name is dmitri and i don't have an affiliation. my question is first is about the bombing of hospitals if you could comment on that with the stance is and what's going on in the theater is about security in europe and if you see any good alternatives and if you were to start from scratch how would you organize security in your euro

europe. >> vr bombing well defined targets that combine the sides or groups we do not bomb hospitals. what we see on the screen are pictures that are painful to watch. moreover, what they are showing the hospitals are designated and

here it for the whole situation where it's a fight between russia and it's wrong to. it's a question for which i'm not sure i have an answer because i've never seen a situation. i remember on the side

[inaudible] nato will change its caretaker completely new. what i would have done is started working on an agreement that is important. it's the human context if people

understand what the others are and i would repeat once again what the others are not because there are so many circulating. but we have tried something similar. they started negotiating the number of spaces and it hasn't produced anything. why it's so fragile, people are

similar. it forms the mentality. can i mention at the highest .4 or five years ago the trade was $39 billion. it was less than 1% of the american trade. there are many others that are significantly more important.

the context between people but is surprising but at the end of the cold war we have the changes between the congress and russian parliament and sometimes it was organized to teach democracy and fight back. people are complaining that in the past they were visiting with each other. they knew each other. there were so many exchanges even the supreme court.

now the executives. what is left as a result of it is political dialogue. after the cold war [inaudible] so the reset wasn't quite what you would have expected?

>> the commission that i was referring to several times doesn't necessarily translate but nevertheless i saw a number where we were a undercurrent of programs with smart greed, something that i've never heard about in the past. long, long ago we were working on the regional levels and there were exchanges between those